Politics and administration were joined and inseparably bonded in intergovernmental relationships during the 1930s. From these early links emerged an administratively based and professionally managed grants economy. This grants economy dominated intergovernmental relations for three decades until a combination of conditions limited its further expansion. Over the past two decades there has been a significant shift toward regulatory federalism. This regulatory emphasis is expected to persist through the 1990s.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. G. Homer Durham, “Politics and Administration in Intergovernmental Relations,”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 207:1-6 (Jan. 1940).
2.
2. Two issues of The Annals since 1940 have been devoted to intergovernmental relations — vol. 359, May 1965; vol. 416, Nov. 1974 — but they give little explicit attention to the administrative aspects of intergovernmental relations per se.
3.
For a brief discussion of the origins and features of intergovernmental relations, see Deil S. Wright, Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, 3d ed. (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1988), pp. 13-26.
4.
V. O. Key , The Administration of Federal Grants to the States (Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1937).
5.
5. Arthur W. Bromage, “Federal-State-Local Relations,”American Political Science Review, 37:35 (Feb. 1943).
6.
6. A somewhat different economic-based approach to understanding IGR from a public-sector industry perspective is Vincent Ostrom and Elinor Ostrom, “A Behavioral Approach to the Study of Intergovernmental Relations,”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 359:137-146 (May 1965).
7.
idem , Categorical Grants: Their Role and Design (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1978).
8.
8. ACIR, Categorical Grants.
9.
9. The precise number of grant programs is never easy to determine because of definitional and identification problems. By one count, in 1969 there were over 1300 federal assistance activities for which monetory amounts, application deadlines, and use restrictions could be identified. See U.S. Congress, House, 1969 Listing of Operating Federal Assistance Programs Compiled during the Roth Study, 91st Cong., 1st sess., 1969, H. Doc. 91-177.
10.
10. Timothy B. Clark, John K. Inglehart, and William Lilley, III, “New Federalism II: Philosophy,”National Journal, 16 Dec. 1972, pp. 1913-1919.
11.
11. “Mayor Seeks Time Spent on Federal In-Kind Services,”Omaha World Herald, 18 July 1973.
12.
12. Terry Sanford, Storm over the States (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. 80.
13.
13. U.S. Congress, Senate, Congressional Record, 89th Cong., 2d sess., 1966, p. 6834.
14.
14. Jeffrey L. Pressman and Aaron B. Wildavsky, Implementation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973).
15.
15. Wayne F. Anderson, “Intergovernmental Aid: Relief or Intrusion?”National Civic Review, 69:129-130 (Mar. 1980).
16.
16. Program professionals were not the only political actors who were rewarded in the grants market. Citizens, clients, members of Congress, and many others gained from transactions in the grants economy.
17.
17. See esp. several articles in David A. Caputo, ed., General Revenue Sharing and Federalism, vol. 419, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (May 1975).
18.
18. U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Managing Federal Assistance in the 1980s (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1980).
19.
19. Robert Greenblatt, “A Comment on Federal-State Relations,” in Intergovernmental Administration: 1976, ed. James D. Carroll and Richard W. Campbell (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, 1976), p. 164.
20.
20. Carl W. Stenberg, “Federalism in Transition,”Intergovernmental Perspective, 6:13 (Winter 1980).
21.
21. Federalism: The First Ten Months, A Report to the President (Washington, DC: White House Staff, 1981), p. 28.
22.
22. Domestic Policy Council, The Status of Federalism in America: A Report of the Working Group of Federalism (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 1986).
23.
23. Executive Order 12612, Federal Register, 26 Oct. 1987, 52:41685-41688.
24.
24. Personal interview, Barbara Broman, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 11 May 1989.
25.
25. Letter to the author from Robert C. Raymond, Director, Research, Evaluation, and Special Analyses, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, 22 May 1989.
26.
26. Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the States, 3d ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1984), p. 252.
27.
27. Ibid.
28.
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs , Regulatory Reform Initiatives, hearings, 100th Cong., 2d sess., 13 May, 14 Sept., and 3 Oct. 1988.
29.
29. Academy for State and Local Government, Preemption: Drawing the Line (Washington, DC: Academy for State and Local Government, 1986).
30.
See also Mel Dubnick and Alan Gitleson, “Nationalizing State Policies,” in The Nationalization of State Government, ed. Jerome J. Hanus (Lexington, MA: D. C. Health, 1981), pp. 51-69.
31.
31. David M. Welborn, “Conjoint Federalism and Environmental Regulation in the United States,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 18:27-44 (Winter 1988).
32.
32. Ibid., p. 28.
33.
33. Kenneth M. Dolbeare, Democracy at Risk: The Politics of Economic Renewal (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1984), p. 174.
34.
34. Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 290.
35.
Thomas J. Anton , American Federalism and Public Policy: How the System Works (New York: Random House, 1989).
